Let's Get To Know Our Tastes In Music

[Karl Henning]

You had me at "Stanley".

This guy, too:

[aukhawk]

I like all good music, from Bach to Bjork.  I'll draw the line at musicals though!

If pushed to name a favourite, after Bach, it might be Sibelius.
My general tastes changed fairly dramatically, around the time I transitioned from LPs to CDs.  To my ears, CDs brought huge advantages to small-scale acoustic performances - solo piano in particular which was really challenging to noisy, wow-ey LPs.  So before that time I was majoring in the likes of Mahler and Shostakovich, but after that time it was more Bach, Chopin, Miles Davis, Indian music.

[Brian]

And now? Well, you know. Zbigniew Karkowski, Sachiko M, Andrea Neumann, Francisco Lopez--I cannot start or I'll never stop. Noise, silence, theatre, indeterminacy, electroacoustics, turntables, live electronics, extended techniques--God, I have to stop writing this post and go listen to some music!!

This is what I love about some guy's posts. He writes about music the way a nympho might write a trashy romance novel... with so much excitement that it starts to bubble over. 

[Sergeant Rock]

And now? Well, you know. Zbigniew Karkowski, Sachiko M, Andrea Neumann, Francisco Lopez--I cannot start or I'll never stop. Noise, silence, theatre, indeterminacy, electroacoustics, turntables, live electronics, extended techniques--God, I have to stop writing this post and go listen to some music!!

Or go take a cold shower 

This is what I love about some guy's posts. He writes about music the way a nympho might write a trashy romance novel...

Sarge

[Elgarian]

This is what I love about some guy's posts. He writes about music the way a nympho might write a trashy romance novel... with so much excitement that it starts to bubble over.

This is my favourite post of the week.

[Cato]

I have told my story several times here throughout the years: quickly, Smetana had enchanted my ear at a very early age when I heard Die Moldauand of course in classic cartoons Wagner, von Suppe', etc. tickled my ears, even though I had no idea who they were.  What I knew is that the music sounded "higher" than the things my mother was playing in the Post-WW II pre-Elvis era.  (My father was fairly unmusical: the only song he liked was by Teresa Brewer (Put Another Nickel In, In the Nickelodeon also known as Music, Music, Music.)

Eventually I found my way to the public library and its record collection: I followed the path of Western Music, and went through a Renaissance phase, a Bach-Handel phase, then a Mozart-Beethoven phase, and onward.

Certainly Bruckner and Mahler and Schoenberg have been near obsessions throughout the decades, along with Scriabin.

Microtonality has also been a favorite taste since the 1970's when I heard a Supraphon record with quartets by Alois Haba.  I believe that Ivan Wyschnegradsky and Julian Carrillo carried the microtonal/quarter-tone idea to levels of greatness.

But the Russians, the Czechs, and so many others Charles Ives, Karol Szymanowski, etc have intrigued me.  In recent years certainly Karl Henning and Luke Ottevanger must be mentioned, and most recently - thanks to Andre' - Petrassi and - thanks to Jeffrey (Vandermolen) - Ivanovs have been added to the musical stew in my soul.

[Cato]

But I do like some music that is among what is referred to as "atonal" - the Second Viennese School I like a lot, as well as, the Italians Nono, Dallapiccolo and Maderna.  I also really like Boulez and Elliott Carter.

But I'd say 80% of my listening is from the period of 1750-1830.

Interesting mix!  I could not pick that period at all.  I sometimes feel that I should give it more of a chance, but in another sense my Classical/Early Romantic phase took care of that. 

For popular music, yes, the Beach Boys and things like Sloop John B were very nice.  Not many popular things ever caught my ear, but in the 1970's and 1980's Pat Benatar e.g. (Invincible) and some other groups were fun to hear.

And on that basis - FUN - besides Peter Schickele, we must mention one of America's greatest living musicians:

[some guy]

This is my favourite post of the week.

Hahaha, mine too!

[stingo]

I like all good music, from Bach to Bjork.  I'll draw the line at musicals though!

What about Dancer in the Dark?

[marvinbrown]

I think it's time to really get to know what people like about classical music and the composers they choose to spend a lot of time with. Time to get down to the nitty gritty as they say. What composers are you drawn towards and how did you discover them? What classical styles are you drawn to and why? I'm not expecting immediate answers, but I would like genuinely honest answers. This isn't a humorous thread. Really think about these questions. Thank you.

  For me it all started with the film Amadeus. I grew up on that film and was drawn to the vocal works of Mozart (the opera excerpts, the Kyrie from the Mass in C Minor and the Requiem). I started exploring the operas of Mozart  later on in life and was instantly hooked. From the operas of Mozart I branched out to the popular operas and vocal works of other composers, Bizet's Carmen, Verdi's Aida and Rigoletto,  Puccini's La Boheme, Bach's Mass in B minor and the St. Matthew Passion and so on......and some time along the years I stumbled upon Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, that music drama  changed everything for me. It's ultra Romantic hypnotic power was unlike anything I had ever heard before or will ever hear again! I must have spent years listening to vocal works  before I started listening to orchestral works. But to this day whenever I explore a new composer I'll go for the vocal works first. There is no greater instrument IMHO than the human voice!

My favourite composer is Wagner. Reason: he's the complete package, beauty, power, drama, illusion, love, lust, hate.....it is all there, in the music dramas. Wagner creates worlds and draws the listener into them for hours on end. Its the ultimate in escapism.

I will listen to anything from Baroque to Modern. I am trying to keep an open mind but I'm human and not immune to favouritism. I'd say that the ultra Romantic movement is my favourite classical music  period. What can I say but thank God for Liszt and Wagner!

marvin

[Mirror Image]

I am trying to keep an open mind but I'm human and not immune to favouritism.

This could be said for most of us, Marvin. It's quite true. There are composers I just don't waste my time on because they do nothing for me and I have tried to like them, but just can't get into them, which, of course, is my own problem and not the composer's problem. I will also say that at the end of the day I don't care where this composer was born or what that composer believed in, I care only about the music. I either enjoy it or I don't. It's as simple as that really. Of course, some of the more inward-looking compositions have to be listened to multiple times to finally come to appreciate, but, in this case, you already like the music a little or else you wouldn't be listening to it for the second, third, or fourth time. I have to make a connection to the music emotionally or else I'm not satisfied. You can have an intellectual connection, but that wears off, it's the emotional connection that hits us like a ton of bricks in which we keep coming back time and time again or, at least, in my own experience this seems to have been the case.

[marvinbrown]

This could be said for most of us, Marvin. It's quite true. There are composers I just don't waste my time on because they do nothing for me and I have tried to like them, but just can't get into them, which, of course, is my own problem and not the composer's problem. I will also say that at the end of the day I don't care where this composer was born or what that composer believed in, I care only about the music. I either enjoy it or I don't. It's as simple as that really. Of course, some of the more inward-looking compositions have to be listened to multiple times to finally come to appreciate, but, in this case, you already like the music a little or else you wouldn't be listening to it for the second, third, or fourth time. I have to make a connection to the music emotionally or else I'm not satisfied. You can have an intellectual connection, but that wears off, it's the emotional connection that hits us like a ton of bricks in which we keep coming back time and time again or, at least, in my own experience this seems to have been the case.

  I agree about the importance of getting emotionally connected to the music. This is essential for me if I am going to eventually love the piece.  But some music to me is just  too " academic" and I find myself trying to "study' it as I am listening to it- just to try to relate to it. It is here that the experience becomes arduous. Sitting back, relaxing and just listening to it without any thought didn't really work for me- all I heard was noise! But after intense study I was able to make a lot of progress with these pieces. I can safely say that I was moderately successful.  Thankfully there aren't many compositions that fit this category but they are worth the effort.

  Here are a few examples:

  1) J.S. Bach: Art of the Fugue

  J.S. Bach is usually quite accessible but talk about a difficult piece- Good Heavens! Musical themes combine, intertwine, vary, invert- to this day I can't follow completely all the complexities of this piece. Bach throws everything (and the kitchen sink!!) at the listener. I have fried my brain cells listening again and again to this work. Just when I think it's within reach of comprehension I'll hear another theme  that takes it far away from me. Give this a listen and tell me what you think:

  [asin]B0000AOVOG[/asin]

  2) Alban Berg: Chamber Concerto for piano, violin & 13 winds

  I am a fan of 12 tone music, the 2nd Viennese School of Music. Schoenberg's Moses und Aron, Berg's Wozzeck and Lulu are truly wonderful. I can even relate to Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony No.1. But every time I listen to Berg's Chamber Concerto I find myself scratching my head and asking WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE??  Yes I know Berg picked the letters in the names of Arnold  Schoenberg, Anton Webern and Alban Berg to create the 12 tone structure for the Chamber Concerto and while I can relate to sections of it it has a terrible tendency to slip away from me. It's a demonic piece, I'll wrestle with it only to be thwarted at the end! If you ever get the chance give this a listen and tell me what you think:

  [asin]B000001GQ2[/asin]

  marvin

[some guy]

Berg's Chamber Concerto is one of my favorite pieces of music. No matter how many times I listen to it, it always seems fresh and new. Just a perennially delightful piece.

But then, I've never thought of "emotionally connected" as being an issue. I'm a human being. What that means for me is that I respond emotionally to everything. It's just a given. I'm at kind of a loss to know what to say to people who say they cannot connect emotionally to this or that piece or this or that style (and who locate, falsely I think, the source of their disconnection in the music--too academic or complex or whatever). All I can think is "really?"

There's plenty of stuff I don't like. Hubert Howe, for instance. But even with Hubert's music, I don't think that I'm not connecting emotionally. I just don't like it.

I guess that for me, it's "emotionally connected" is just something that happens. Business as usual. Not even worth mentioning. When I listen to music, what I love are the sounds and the combinations of sounds and the sequencing of sounds and the changes in the various states of sound.

Anyway, none of that's gonna be of any use to Marvin for getting to like the Berg. Sorry! But the whole business of emotions in music or of emotional connection really intrigues me. That is, it intrigues me that so many people report it as being the thing that they want or need or require for a satisfying musical experience.

For me, that would be like saying I need to be wet before I can enjoy water. No. Getting wet is just what happens when there's water about.

[marvinbrown]

Berg's Chamber Concerto is one of my favorite pieces of music. No matter how many times I listen to it, it always seems fresh and new. Just a perennially delightful piece.

But then, I've never thought of "emotionally connected" as being an issue. I'm a human being. What that means for me is that I respond emotionally to everything. It's just a given. I'm at kind of a loss to know what to say to people who say they cannot connect emotionally to this or that piece or this or that style (and who locate, falsely I think, the source of their disconnection in the music--too academic or complex or whatever). All I can think is "really?"

There's plenty of stuff I don't like. Hubert Howe, for instance. But even with Hubert's music, I don't think that I'm not connecting emotionally. I just don't like it.

I guess that for me, it's "emotionally connected" is just something that happens. Business as usual. Not even worth mentioning. When I listen to music, what I love are the sounds and the combinations of sounds and the sequencing of sounds and the changes in the various states of sound.

Anyway, none of that's gonna be of any use to Marvin for getting to like the Berg. Sorry! But the whole business of emotions in music or of emotional connection really intrigues me. That is, it intrigues me that so many people report it as being the thing that they want or need or require for a satisfying musical experience.

For me, that would be like saying I need to be wet before I can enjoy water. No. Getting wet is just what happens when there's water about.

I am not sure if this is going to help but let me clarify one point that is important to me: in order for me to have a truly satisfying musical experience I have to understand what I am listening to. Pardon the cliche but music is a "language" and it is composed to "say something", to have "meaning". Once I understand a piece of music I respond to it..... I am engaged, my emotions are automatically involved whether I like it or not. Does this make sense?

  marvin

[Brahmsian]

Berg's Chamber Concerto is one of my favorite pieces of music. No matter how many times I listen to it, it always seems fresh and new. Just a perennially delightful piece.

But then, I've never thought of "emotionally connected" as being an issue. I'm a human being. What that means for me is that I respond emotionally to everything. It's just a given. I'm at kind of a loss to know what to say to people who say they cannot connect emotionally to this or that piece or this or that style (and who locate, falsely I think, the source of their disconnection in the music--too academic or complex or whatever). All I can think is "really?"

There's plenty of stuff I don't like. Hubert Howe, for instance. But even with Hubert's music, I don't think that I'm not connecting emotionally. I just don't like it.

I guess that for me, it's "emotionally connected" is just something that happens. Business as usual. Not even worth mentioning. When I listen to music, what I love are the sounds and the combinations of sounds and the sequencing of sounds and the changes in the various states of sound.

Anyway, none of that's gonna be of any use to Marvin for getting to like the Berg. Sorry! But the whole business of emotions in music or of emotional connection really intrigues me. That is, it intrigues me that so many people report it as being the thing that they want or need or require for a satisfying musical experience.

For me, that would be like saying I need to be wet before I can enjoy water. No. Getting wet is just what happens when there's water about.

Emotional connnection to music is not 'business as usual', and it IS worth mentioning.

Are you a robot?  My God, I've never understood you, and never will.  That is OK, don't want or need to.

Life is too short to listen to the music of 1,000,000,000,000 + composers no one has ever heard of, and for good reason.

[some guy]

... music is a "language" and it is composed to "say something", to have "meaning". Once I understand a piece of music I respond to it..... I am engaged, my emotions are automatically involved whether I like it or not. Does this make sense?

Yes. Though I disagree about the language and the saying something and the meaning.

And that might be why you stumble when you do. Dunno what else to say. I think you're wrong, and I think it is your wrongness (in this regard) that handicaps you when you listen to music.

[Brahmsian]

And that might be why you stumble when you do. Dunno what else to say. I think you're wrong, and I think it is your wrongness (in this regard) that handicaps you when you listen to music.

No, Marvin is right.  You are wrong.  Everyone hear already knows that except you.

[some guy]

Are you a robot?

If this is what you got out of my last post, in which I claim that I respond emotionally to everything, because I'm a human--or what you can say about me after reading my wee bio post only three posts away from yours (about which you'll recall Brian's humorous assessment), then my God, I don't understand you at all. Unless it's functional illiteracy. I do understand that.

My God, I've never understood you, and never will.  That is OK, don't want or need to.

You've said this same thing so many times now, I'm beginning to disbelieve you. You seem desperately to need to understand me. Hint: it's your own fault--you just as consistently misunderstand what I've said. So it's no wonder, eh?

Life is too short to listen to the music of 1,000,000,000,000 + composers no one has ever heard of...

I'm sixty. I've been listening for forty years to composers I had never heard of until I bought their LPs or CDs or attended concerts where their pieces were being played.

Life is too short to listen to only familiar pieces at the exclusion of unfamiliar ones.

...and for good reason.

Ah. What you don't know you know you don't need to know because it's not worth knowing, eh? I see.

My God, I've never understood you, and never will.

EDIT:

No, Marvin is right.  You are wrong.  Everyone hear already knows that except you.

A poll, a poll!!

[Scarpia]

I am not sure if this is going to help but let me clarify one point that is important to me: in order for me to have a truly satisfying musical experience I have to understand what I am listening to. Pardon the cliche but music is a "language" and it is composed to "say something", to have "meaning". Once I understand a piece of music I respond to it..... I am engaged, my emotions are automatically involved whether I like it or not. Does this make sense?

The problem with saying that music is a language that has meaning is that people don't agree what any given piece "means."  There is a pie in my refrigerator.  100 people will read that sentence, understand it, and agree to its meaning.  In the context they may disagree as to whether I am glad there is a pie, or whether I have some ulterior meaning in telling about the pie but they will agree about the overt message.  Play a passage from Beethoven and 100 out of 100 people may have some emotional reaction, but there will be no agreement what that emotion is.  Music may evoke emotions, but it is not a language that communicates emotions.

[Scarpia]

No, Marvin is right.  You are wrong.  Everyone hear already knows that except you.

I don't know it.  I think some guy is absolutely right.  As I understand him, he did not say he has no emotional reaction to music, he said that emotional reactions to music are personal and not an intrinsic property of the music itself.   To assume your emotional reaction to a piece of music  is important to others is narcissism.   It is more interesting to talk about the music itself, and let others consider how they will respond to it (or not) emotionally.